Anyone who has ever been a parent.  Anyone who has ever spent a lot of time outdoors. Anyone who has been long hours in an auto in lonely stretches of America. Anyone who has lived or worked on a farm.  Anyone – male or female — who has felt nature call at the worst moments….  

Anyone knows that sometimes there is no restroom, no john, no bathroom or no pot behind closed doors to relieve oneself when the bladder screams.

 So I suspect a sizable portion of our population really feels ambivalent that “urinating in a public place” is a veritable crime, an act that merits some kind of punishment. I frankly would be the last person to ever file a complaint or report to police if I saw someone in an alley let fly into the bushes. 

So what! I don’t know how urgent the need was at the moment.

  Much has been made about a campaign worker facing charges linked to urinating in a bottle near his truck while he was parked near a day labor center in Phoenix. The Tribune reported that  “Buffalo” Rick Galeener was cited while he was involved in a months-long vigil staged there. The  incident became part of a larger story about Galeener and how Mesa Senate candidate Russell Pearce was  “backing away from an endorsement” by the man in a brouhaha with other issues.  Nonetheless, Galeener’s misdemeanor case is set for pretrial hearing on Sept. 26.  “I don’t deny that I had a bottle in my truck but I never admitted to anything,” the Tribune story said.

 And what is wrong with that, folks?  What is wrong with pulling off to the shoulder of a road, reaching for a bottle from under one’s carseat and discreetly relieving oneself and disposing of it later?  “Discreetly” is the operative word.  I suspect more than a few deputies and cops through time have discreetly let fly in places out of direct view, but not designated relief stations.  Toilets may even be close, but they are not accessible in so many of life’s situations.  Who hasn’t had a child desperately needing a restroom, but none available?

 When my children were small and we were far from service stations on long trips, we pulled onto gravel roads and let the kids “run into the bushes” or behind pine trees. Sometime we adults did the same. Who was the victim? Who was offended?  At other times, we pulled out containers and let them take care of things. No big deal. No one’s sensibilities affected.

 In my days living in various countries of South America, it was common to see men relieving themselves by just turning toward walls along the sidewalks and going. Girls similarly squatted in the street gutters. Women had their judicious means, as well.  You understood the context: Public restrooms were far and in between and rarely handy. Poverty itself had much to do with the practice.  Did civilization finally arrive when every citizen was trained to only use the restroom?

 I can walk 45 steps from the Tribune parking lot and show you where someone discreetly chose a walkway between two buildings and defecated and covered it with cloth.  It has been there for days. You can find the same thing behind numerous Dumpsters in our communities. Yes, the people seeking that quasi-privacy should NOT have done their duty there, or, at a minimum, they should have found a container and disposed of it in the Dumpster.  But who are we to judge that when nature called, they should have timed their lives to be near public restrooms? 

When I was a twice-weekly Tempe columnist for the Tribune, I wrote several commentaries advocating highly visible public restrooms be established in downtown Tempe. They never came about. City officials used their lame excuse that such restrooms would lead to sexual predators and misconduct.  Or putting in restrooms couldn’t be fit into the city budget.

Until science and human engineers perfect our bodies and let us program our organs so we can store excretions for scheduled elimination, I think law enforcement should back off as  they would if someone vomited in public. Sure, they should scold and tell perpetrators to properly dispose of their wastes. Ultimately, accessibility to public toilets needs to be part of the scene. Issues of sanitation and public health will always be raised.

But to equate all of this, for example, with indecent exposure or public indecency is a real stretch and a disservice to what we are as human beings – creatures like all other living things that excrete. Carrying emergency relief containers in one’s vehicle is no different than carrying a first-aid kit or a spare tire for the unexpected.  And until we do a better job of helping the street poor and the homeless and bathroomless, we need to show some understanding and no feigning being offended.

After years of talk about  religion in American presidential politics and what brand of believers would be on the November 2008 ballot, we now know it will be  member of the United Church of Christ (Sen. Barack Obama) and an Episcopalian/practicing Baptist (Sen. John McCain) leading the Democratic and Republican ticket respectively.

And we know there will be a Roman Catholic in the Democratic vice president slot (Sen.  Joe Biden) and a member of the Assemblies of God (Gov. Sarah Palin) as McCain’s ballot partner. 

So it is United Church of Christ/Roman Catholic versus Episcopal/Baptist/ Assemblies of God.  Put together, the five faiths are long-established beliefs. If “averaged out” on the spectrum, they would tend toward conservative Christian orthodoxy.  The United Church of Christ stands out from the others as one of America’s most progresssive and focused on social action.  It’s the faith that touts that “God is still speaking” and was the first major faith to OK ordaining openly gay clergy and all that goes with it.

McCain’s religious identity has often been simply  labeled “Christian” by the senator himself. “I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist,” he told the Associated Press following one South Carolina rally.  The Congressional Directory has listed him as Episcopalian, and he has said he was raised in an Episcopal church and went to “Episcopal High School.”

With wife Cindy McCaina as a declared Baptist, McCain has said he has been attending giant North Phoenix Baptist Church for more than 15 years. It is evident that John McCain answers to “Baptist” or “Episcopalian.”  The campaign heretofore has shown McCain not one to wear his religion on his sleeve and has not been a religious firebrand. 

And now, after all the fuss and insertion of religion in the long campaign, there is no Mormon on the ballot — again.  The candidacy of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,  was widely watched and debated.  Conservative Christians openly said Mormon teachings don’t embrace the same tenets and teachings of the Christian faith they know, and they would not support Romney.   We wonder how much that may have been a factor in McCain forgoing the former governor as his running mate.

Even after he withdrew as a candidate, despite the second strongest showing in the Republican primaries, Romney’s remained out there a long time as a possible vice presidential candidate for McCain. At time, he even seemed to be the most likely candidate as names fell off the list.  But, in the end, it did not happen. Certainly  many in the Arizona Mormon community are probably disappointed.

The largely unknown Palin, whose anti-abortion position coincides with Assemblies of God’s fierce stand, was being called a “bizarre choice” Friday by the National Jewish Democratic Council.  Its executive director, Ira Forman, said there was not evidence that she had ever spoken publicy about Israel.  “On a broad range of issues, most strikingly on the issue of women’s reproductive freedom, she is totally out of step with Jewish public opinion.”  Then Forman underscored that this way: “The gulf between Palin’s public policy positions and the American Jewish community is best illustrated by the fact that the Christian Coalition of America was one of the strongest advocates of her selection.”

And if you missed what the CCA said, here is an execerpt: “She will bring to the forefront of our cultural conversations an intelligent, realistic, well-grounded woman’s perspective. Take that feminists — here is a woman of accomplishment who brings a fresh face to traditional values and models the type of woman most girls want to become.”

Look for Palin, with her reputed feistiness, to manifest her conservative Christianity in her barnstorming for the ticket.  Along the way, sparks are certain to fly.  

Iowa Methodist Hospital in 1946 had a pretty good deal as a place where mothers could go to deliver their babies.

On Sunday night, I sorted through a box of old billls, receipts and papers that my parents had left behind. I’ve had them for most of a decade but had never pored through them. First, I found the receipt from Feb. 17, 1944, at the Des Moines hospital when my sister, Lin, was born. It showed receipt of $57.50 for “maternity” for her birth, with hospital employee Lu Ellsworth filling out the 3 by 5 ½-inch receipt. Later I found the “admission agreement,” showing my mother was a housewife and my father was in “dairy farming.” Ms. Ellsworth had also filled out that form and noted that “Mrs. was nurse at Broadlawns” General Hospital across town.

A few minutes later, I came across the “statement of account” for my mother’s hospitalization at the same facility for my birth and that of my twin brother on Feb. 4, 1946. More amazingly, my mother stayed 10 days in that hospital for $4.75 per day for a total charge of $47.50. There were $17.50 in operating room costs, $2 for drugs, and $6 for laboratory. Under “other charge - please itemize,” it said “Twin baby boys - $10.” (That was probably for the hideous act of circumcision; $5 apiece for genital mutilation. What a rip-off. I would never have chosen that.)

So the entire hospital bill tallied on Feb. 14, when my mother was released, was $83, which was paid on the spot. That essentially puts my neonatal hospital costs at $41.50.

What a stark contrast to anything done with a hospital today. I recall, a few years back, a Tempe hospital billed us — and my late father’s insurance company — $12,000 for a brief hospitalization. The computer printout of all the items billed took 10 or more pages to detail.

The box of old financial records offers an amazing look at another era in the American economy when farm taxes totaled $140 for a year, stamps were a penny and the Montgomery Wards catalogue order for a horde of Christmas gifts came to under $30.

I also found a hand-written note that my kindergarten teacher sent home to my parents in September 1951. “Here is the list of workbooks ordered for the primary grade and price,” wrote Mrs. Schwartz, whom I would also have the next year for first grade when she was Mrs. Barnes (she married the superintendent). The titles were: “We Go to School,” 40 cents; “Junior Primary,” 40 cents; “Think and Do,” 45 cents; “Before We Read,” 45 cents; “Jolly Numbers,” 45 cents; “Puzzle Pages,” 45 cents; and “Fun with Dick and Jane workbook,” 45 cents.” It totaled $3.05.

“Please send as soon as convient (sic),” Mrs. Schwartz wrote, adding that my parents should “come over and look them over when at P.T.A. or anytime,” plus a note that both of us twins would need our own set of books.

I frankly cannot tell you whether I ever saw the film “The Cardinal.”  Stashed away at home, I have a book in which I wrote every film I ever saw in a theater, at least well into the beginning of my marriage 35 years ago. Then I stopped keeping track. It is quite a long list – especially growing long during my two years in the U.S. Army when I spent my entire time stationed at Fort Polk military post in western Louisiana.

But it was 1963 – 45 years ago—that “The Cardinal” was released in theaters.  It’s the fictitious story of a New England Catholic priest who rises to become America’s first cardinal.  The character, the Rev. Stephen Fermoyle (played by a handsome actor, Tom Tryon, Hartford, Conn., native), goes through a long series of experiences on his way to rising to the second highest role in the Roman Catholic Church, the College of Cardinals, just short of being pope. 

 The Fairfield County (Conn.) Catholic, a biweekly newspaper, serving the Diocese of Bridgeport, regularly comes my way (I don’t know why), and I find it an excellent example of  sectarian  journalism.  The Aug. 9 issue had a feature about how the filming for “The Cardinal” in 1962 in Stamford took place and what people in that area, still living, remember about those experiences. The film featured such longtime actors as Carol Lynley, John Huston, Burgess Meredith, Ossie Davis and Romy Schneider.  The film was set in the era from 1917 to the start of World War II and was filmed in Connecticut, Rome and Vienna.  Filming began just as Vatican II was underway in Rome.

Many quoted in the story were then-young Catholic school children in the Stamford area who made up the extras, a few with small speaking parts.  Their memories are delightful.  “On the day of the shooting, he (Frank Macari, a Saint John School second grader) and other class members were brought down to the kindergarten where the wardrobe area had been set up. The boys were to be outfitted in 1917 knickers and caps.  ‘If the costume fit you, you got to be part of the scene. If it didn’t, you had to go back upstairs to class,’” Macari recalled of his acting debut.

Some lamented that they were in many scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor. The film’s legendary director, Otto Preminger, was fearsome. Patricia Smith Nivakoff-Altman said Preminger was “a stern and imposing autocrat who frightened the students and ruled the set with complete authority.”  Students did not dare act up around him, she said.   She also recalled being in a scene in the basement of their church in which “Father Fermoyle explains to students that people of other faiths can get to heaven.”

“We did 38 takes,” Nivakoff-Altman remembered.  “We didn’t finish until 3 in the afternoon. And the next day, because we had missed school, we had to write an essay about the experience.”  None of them got a cent for taking part in the filming, she said, adding how it still was one of the most memorable experiences of her life.

Pat Bell of Stratford, Conn., told how exciting it was to be in a film about a priest and to see all the things brought in to recreate the year 1917. She proved to be too tall for a scene where kids walk along side the priest as he says good-bye to the parish. To allay Bell’s disappointment of being excluded, her parents promised to take her to see the film when it would be released.

  “The Cardinal,” which debuted Dec. 12, 1963, got mixed reviews, but earned six Academy Award and six Golden Globe nominations. It won Golden Globes for best motion picture in drama and the best supporting actor (Huston) in the awards the next year.

Rick Warren certainly pulled off a coup last Saturday by getting Barack Obama and John McCain to answer his questions for an hour each, one after the other. When the night was over at Saddleback Church in Lake Forrest, Calif., I felt cheapened. I felt like two men had been used.

Throughout the exercise, I was ambivalence that the two presidential candidates were being asked questions impertinent to much of what we would expect them to do as president of the United States. After all, The U.S. Constitution says “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Afterwards, it was said that Warren’s litany of questions had “exposed the souls” of the senators and presidential hopefuls. But there was the nagging question that they had been prodded to answer questions on things like “evil.” Much of the body language on Saturday showed candidates safely answering and giving expected responses, but their expressions suggested, “Is this appropriate?’’ I cringed.

Both candidates, at times, seemed to be sycophants to the head of one of the nation’s five largest churches, both alluding to Warren’s wildly successful book, “A Purpose Driven Life,” with its 25-million copies sold.

So I am encouraged by a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey whose results were released Wednesday that found “more Americans question religion’s role in politics: Conservatives’ views now more in line with the views of moderates and liberals.” It talked of a change of heart by Americans. Just over half of Americans said churches and other houses of worships should keep out of political matters “and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters.” Pew said that was a change from the pattern over the past year where there was support for such speaking out.

In a survey July 31 to Aug. 10, some 2,905 adults were polled. It found that the change of heart was mostly among conservatives: Four years ago, 30 percent of conservatives said they believed churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. “Today, 50 percent of conservatives express this view,” Pew researchers said.

Moreover, “a small but significant increase” was found, since 2004, in the number of people saying they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are (40 percent to 46 percent). Pew found that an increasing number of Americans assert that “religiously defined ideological groups have too much control” over the political parties.

 “Nearly half (48 percent) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43 percent in August 2007,” it said. From those polled in 2007 and 2008, respondents said liberals, who are not religious, have too much sway over the Democrats – 43 percent today to 37 percent last year.